The IPCC Working Group II report is due out next week. As is the way, the summary is leaked in advance so the media can slaver over the ghastly possibilities, while the irksome details and accountability are held back so they don’t get in the way of the media pump. But alas, like Paul Reiter, and Christopher Landsea, another lead author wants his name removed from the IPCC document.
UK professor refuses to put his name to ‘apocalyptic’ UN climate change survey that he claims is exaggerating the effects
- Prof Richard Tol said UN academics were exaggerating climate change
- Comes as a blow to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- Panel to publish its first update in seven years on the impacts of climate change
By Ben Spencer, Daily Mail
Professor Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex, said fellow UN academics were exaggerating climate change and comparing it to the ‘apocalypse’.
Prof Tol, the lead co-ordinating author of the report’s chapter on economics, was involved in drafting the summary for policymakers – the key document that goes to governments and scientists. But he has now asked for his name to be removed from the document.
He said: ‘The message in the first draft was that through adaptation and clever development these were manageable risks, but it did require we get our act together.
‘This has completely disappeared from the draft now, which is all about the impacts of climate change and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. This is a missed opportunity.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk
“Working group I (the physical sciences) doesn’t want to sound alarmist. In working group II, they don’t want to chance not having spotted a particular risk so they have a bias in the other direction,” he said.
So it’s not the job of the IPCC to give accurate risk assessments, and an economist is not expected to do an economic cost-benefit analysis. The real aim is to make sure they have the complete list of all disasters (and not so many of the benefits).
Once again national policy is reduced to a YES-or-NO question, not a numerate one. Who needs climate numbers? The only numbers that matter are the gravy train type.
“In this report, they are more honest and open that they have a risk orientation because they do focus more on the risks than the opportunities.”
And the two bias’s cancel each other out, right — making it a balanced neutral report? Is that how it works: We were too cool and calm in Part I so forgive us for being over-excited in Part II? If only.
The BBC will no longer allow climate “skeptic” opinions, as they disagree with a consensus leading experts in the field. But when a leading expert in climate economics dissents at the populist exaggeration, an “inexpert mouth” (to use Lewandowsky’s phrase) is allowed to counter that expert. Methinks there is a double-standard here.
412
This is a good turn of events – its good the public see that even the people who write the IPCC stuff dont agree with it. This highlights to anyone witha bit of nouse that politics plays a big role .
Internal brawling over accuarcy can only damage the IPCC further and make it further discredited.
130
How is “Dr Arthur Petersen, the chief scientist at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency”, an “inexpert mouth”, Kevin?
Are you just making stuff up?
————
Jen, maybe Kevin is judging Petersen by the quality of his arguments, not by the quality of his “title”? – Jo
25
He’s is clearly doing no such thing.
He is asserting a parallel between a Lewandowsky narrative and a real-life BBC news publication, despite the fact Lewandowsky’s narrative involves “inexperts” and the BBC event involves an expert.
[I suggest you read it again. Kevin points out that a, “leading expert in climate economics dissents”, and the BBC responds with comment from the, “Chief Scientist at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency”. Is the Chief Scientist an expert in economics, or is he an ‘inexpert’ in that discipline? The word,”inexpert”, is attributed to Lewandowsky. -Fly]
24
Whoop there goes another one! Over her head.
20
What can I say except good for Richard Tol.
Another card falls from the house of cards. And may many more do the same.
271
“For whom does the bell tol (toll)?”
“it tols for thee”.
From Hemingways classic novel ‘For whom the bell tolls”.
Hemingway took the line from a 1624 poem by John Donne.
So what does this saying mean?
The bell is the bell of death – game over!!
In current context “the whom” is the IPCC – yes the game is over for the IPCC, ie they are literally dead.
50
from Steve Goddard.
Hypochondriacs see everything as a sign of disease. Climochondriacs suffer the same mental disturbance.
good name.
200
They are Climate Change Nazis too.
60
That now my word of the day.
21
I missed that post from Steve. Thank you for pointing it out. Climochondriacs. Pure and simple and without the baggage that “climate Nazis” contains.
30
The longer an organisation accumulate power at the expense of integrity the more disenfranchised honest members become.
Increasing disenchantment with deceitful methods will force those members to eventually act.
The more that act the more that will act.
150
You can always rely on their mendacity, especially when it comes to mugging the press release, or the executive summary as it’s laughingly called.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/armageddon-report-no-5/
Pointman
180
It is interesting that there appears to have been immediate, and concerted, moves to down-play Richard Tol’s comments as being wrong and irrelevant.
This indicates that a contingency plan existed, for exactly this type of situation.
That is exactly what used to happen when any Russian intellectual publicly spoke of disagreement within the Soviet Politburo. They discovered that they had been appointed to a new post at the University of Northern Siberia.
It speaks volumes about the politics within the IPCC and the UN in general. It has zero to do with science, and everything to do with politics.
240
Before you get too excited at the prospect of a warmist falling off the wagon, learn a little more about Professor Richard Tol. Despite his connections with the skeptic’s own Global Warming Policy Foundation Tol openly acknowledges that climate change is real and has to be addressed with preferably, in his words, a Carbon Tax.
http://www.academia.edu/178594/Why_Worry_About_Climate_Change
Tol, who hails from Ireland, takes the view that a country with one of the worst climates in the world will only be marginally affected by Climate Change, and unlike Australia believes that Ireland has a moral obligation to address its CO2 emissions to demonstrate “good will”.
Apart from that Tol is just one of over 400 contributors to the IPCC report, and is a person regularly enrobed in controversy picking fault (rather than issues) with other peoples work (this is a good thing if he happens to be right but not so if he is routinely wrong)
229
No worries bilb. We expect bad mouthing of luke-warmists who dare to break ranks with the Church of Climate. I’m just surprised you’re the only one.
141
What about Tol’s FUND model, any opinions on that?
Specifically, any opinions on Nordhaus’s extensive explanation of its shortcomings?
32
–
Move down-thread a little, JenJ; you can ask Professor Tol yourself!…..>>>>>>>
00
The article is from 2009. It seems to me Tol has changed his views somewhat since then.
70
Its really about the team rather than the principal with you BilB. Rather childish.
The whole point was that Richard Tol was asked to be lead-coordinating author because he believed that climate change was real. Still, he found that the IPCC was just a nutter on the corner screaming that the end was nigh.
170
Vic, I think you ask too much.
BilB has not shown much evidence of being an independent rational thinker. So is it surprising that he fails to recognise the significance of Richard Tol’s request?
Prof. Tol is a man, at the pinnacle of his scientific career to date, still accepting the science, as far as it goes, but rejecting the layers of political alarmism that gets plastered on top. Good for him.
BilB is far too much of the oaf to recognise integrity, for what it is.
182
BilB,
“Tol, who hails from Ireland, takes the view that a country with one of the worst climates in the world will only be marginally affected by Climate Change, and unlike Australia believes that Ireland has a moral obligation to address its CO2 emissions to demonstrate “good will”.”
So climate change like sea level rise is localised?
100
If its a choice between a member of the flock, any flock…. and an agnostic. Ill take the agnostic.
I spent some time as an agnostic before I became an atheist.
Given that AGW theory subscription is an amazingly close analogy for religion, I try to sympathise with those who are still on their journey toward the light.
30
Correction.
Richard Tol hails from the Netherlands. Ooops.
05
Yes BilB. And his having that position is all the more reason for rejoicing over his rejection of an exaggerated, unjustifiable report. It’s really embarrassing for the IPCC when one of their own is so embarrassed by what they’re doing that he doesn’t want to be associated with it.
Give it up and go home. Your batting average is a big fat zero. 🙁
20
It may actually be true, as Kevin Rudd asserted that, ‘climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time’ (or words to that effect). But, to my mind, the interesting thing is that it is a moral challenge for a DIFFERENT reason to what Kevin was outlining when he made that speech.
The great moral challenge is all about the individual’s courage and conviction to stand up and say, ‘The King hath no clothes’. The reason why this is a decision displaying great morality is that the person who does it, in this case Richard Tol, faces a barrage of personal hostility, derision, exclusion, and vilification for his decision to stand by his personal convictions. He may even face loss of status among the majority of his peers and all those who say the science is settled. He may also face loss of income.
The moral challenge is whether to speak out or just stay quiet. It is whether to stand up against the tyranny of the majority or to just go along with the crowd.
Full points to Richard Tol for facing the great moral challenge of our time and dealing with it in a way that has great moral virtue.
370
Yes but who defines what good morals are?
Post modernism plays into this too – it says ( roughly speaking ) that truth is relative and your truth is what you perceive it to be.
If behaviour is basedon what is right and wrong based on what you perceive to be right and wrong, truth and untruth, moralism means nothing as such.
Blame the lefties for infiltrating the edication system and pumping out unthinking under-edicuated nitwits/canon fodder…
This is how you can mes sup a whole generation – get control of education, craete “truth” then turn the drones against the thinkers.
Damn – that sounds just like Pol pot….
30
Teachers refuse to teach the kiddies to check. It infuriates the kiddies to be corrected so most teachers learn quickly to only use it as punishment. Checking, stoically, is a huge part of critical thinking (even when using a smart phone ☺).
40
It is because the “progressives” regard rational thought as a hate crime.
Rational thought leads to notions such as better and worse, right and wrong, failed and successful, which all belong to that hateful stance of discrimination.
Blind, value-less indiscrimination is a moral imperative to “progressives”.
20
Strongly agree David.
At the end of the day it matters less who is right and who is wrong in this debate than it does that science remains open to questions at all times.
Whether climate change presents a moral challenge or not is of basically no importance if the evidence does not support the actions being taken.
In the same way that less Americans have been killed by terrorism throughout history than commit suicide in recent years, while their Government spends billions campaigning across the world and millions on suicide prevention. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/
Dedicating a measurable percentage of the world’s economy to whiffle dust production in order to see off the green dragons is just madness posing as moral high ground.
Professor Tol hit the nail of the madness right on the head. He goes straight to one of Michael Chrichton’s main assertions of why the environment movement and large government institutions are obsessed with AGW. Its a hand wringing problem that has no way of measuring either success or failure. Where as if you decided to spend the money on reducing deforestation in Indonesia, well that’s another story. You can measure success and failure, so you wont see an environmentalist going near the topic.
AGW is the gift that keeps on giving for every bed wetting eco loony around. They can chicken little till the cows come home and no conclusive proof either way is likely to emerge in their lifetime. As long as lots of money is being thrown at a problem you cant quantify, all is right in their world.
00
It’s something like this. You can be Winston Churchill. Or you can be Neville Chamberlain.
Head in the sand didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now. Both men thought they were right. One would have given away the kingdom for the sake of peace and the other snatched it back from the jaws of defeat.
Which one will we be? The question has to be answered by each of us individually.
10
Dr Arthur Petersen, chief scientist, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
No pretence of veracity. It’s now no holds barred ideology, quite consistent with:
Obama Brings His Anti-Coal Campaign to Energy-Insecure Europe
The Dutch prime minister announced on Monday that the Netherlands will join the U.S.-led effort to end public financing of coal-fired plants abroad.
President Obama also mentioned the two countries’ “shared determination to confront climate change and its effects,” such as rising sea levels that concern the Netherlands:
“We’re pleased that the Netherlands has joined our initiative that will virtually end all public financing for coal-fired plants abroad. It’s concrete action like this that can keep making progress on reducing emissions while we develop new global agreements on climate change.”
20
Typical socialist foolishness, Germany is the EU engine room and is financing the economic basket cases and is building a number of new coal fired power stations to regain some cost reductions for German industries, and these socialist clowns want to stop them?
I forgot, it’s all about an agenda to control the world isn’t it.
80
Yes
00
Unfortunately for Obama coal fired stations supply electricity at such a low rate that they make a profit without any government subsidy. That’s why there are 30 of them being built or planned in Germany (even with a carbon tax).
What is the Dutch for “this is waffle for the sake of it”.
30
Wooden shoe, wooden shoe, clogged mind?
01
Can I hope for the sea to rise up and swallow Washington DC or is that a bit too much?
I suppose it’s too much considering that sea level hasn’t risen significantly for hundreds of years, Al Gore not withstanding.
I’d be too embarrassed to make such statements.
By the way, only part of the Netherlands is below sea level. And they have coped with that situation long before Obama, climate change or any other nonsense and have done it all on their own. I’m surprised that they’ve sunk so low as to even give Obama the time of day. They should be tossing him out of the country. But such are the benefits of socialism that it steals even the will to think for yourself, lest your masters cut off all the benefits.
10
Getting off a gravy train on a matter of principle is almost impossible to imagine in today’s world of ‘settled science’ and manipulated climate data.
Unfortunately, the climate faithful remaining on the train will close ranks and spit their scorn and derision. Honesty is a concept which is totally alien to the climate faithful, the reason?
The gravy train – the only thing that matters to the leaders of the climate faithful is the continuation of the gravy train.
60
As I understand it, the IPCC contributors are ‘volunteers’. By definition it is a biased body, given that those Green agenda — UN agenda 21 driven folk are likely to be the chosen few with sufficient motivation to engage. If one of the merry band walk, as Tol has done, this generates a disproportionate degree of existential angst, which requires quick and competent management, or it could be contagious.
The net result is the ‘healthy worker effect’. Those who end up remaining are the pure toxic distillation of ‘on-message’ devotees. We can therefore anticipate that the message will grow ever more strident and dire, in an increasingly Monty Python-esque way. In due course they will find themselves screeching to an empty auditorium .
40
Who, of course, then proudly add ‘IPCC Contributor’ or ‘Nobel Laureate’ – to their CV’s.
20
I applaud Richard Tol for his willingness to take a principled stand. most climate scientists have the backbone of a jellyfish. Richard Tol is neither the first nor is he likely to be the last reviewer to ask to have his name removed from an IPCC assessment report. Although there probably are many that would like to follow in Tol’s footsteps they cannot for the oldest of reasons: money.
I am willing to wager that, with few exceptions, those who speak out or ask to have their name removed can afford to do so. I would imagine that financial security, tenure, pending retirement or being “too big to fail” would be some of the possible prerequisites for many of those who do speak out.
I truly admire those who speak out simply because it is the right thing to do.
As for those who do not, I cannot judge them too harshly because I would be tempted to remain silent if I were in their shoes. In a sense, they are under duress. A financial gun is being held to their heads. Either they go along to get along or, as the climategate emails show, they risk being fired and blackballed.
I still believe it will be the taxpayers instinct for financial survival that will eventually put an end to this scam.
I pray that it is soon.
271
Why do you say “reviewer”, when Tol was actually the lead author of his chapter?
Do you not follow Tol’s Twitter feed? Tol sayd a couple of hours ago:
“last week I accidentally told the BBC about a decision I made six months ago; I’m still a CLA”
So….*what* “principled stand”????
Are you commenting without actually bothering to read into the facts again, Eddy? Constructing fictional narratives without regard to the facts?
13
Why follow 30 second sound bytes? Do you think they convey wisdom? I am sure you do.
10
OT. Here’s a plum posting for an aspiring Arctic explorer, counting Polar Bears in Siberia.
Bored of your office job? Arctic researchers advertise new post COUNTING polar bears (and they’re even offering £400,000)
You might have been wondering where all the BigOil money was going.
As well as counting bears, the person who wins the post will also be expected to place electronic monitoring collars on up to 20 adult females. They also need to take blood samples from the bears so that laboratory tests can be carried out later.
But only the brave and resilient need apply. Polar bears are one of the few mammals that will deliberately hunt humans for food.
40
Sounds like a Big oil conspiracy to slowly eliminate climate scientists who would gladly prostitute themselves for a buck.
41
I had a similar thought. It’s a plum of a job for some green enthusiasts willing to risk being eaten by a Polar Bear.
Polar Bear oh Polar Bear;
How do I love thee?
Let me count the ways.
Polar Bear oh Polar Bear;
For love I would count thee;
Will you eat me?
Polar Bear oh Polar Bear
Come let me count thee;
But eat before the census.
Polar Bear oh Polar Bear;
Let go of me;
Heeeelp…
Bad poetry, Roy, very bad! Hopefully not prophetic. 😉
30
The tendency to report selectively on negative impacts was called a “risk-oriented approach” in the 2010 report from the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (commenting on the 2007 IPCC report). It’s interesting, and you might have expected that the IPCC would have used it constructively. But of course, they haven’t.
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/500216002.pdf
10
Let me add: the wording is mild, but the implications are clear to anyone who understands it. Saying “we’ve told you about the negative impacts but there are positive ones we haven’t mentioned” is a different ball game than pretending there are no positive impacts.
20
Maybe, just maybe, a few scientists are starting to get the realisation that AGW has very little to do with actual science and more and more to do with ideology, lobbying, politics, pork barrels and money grabbing.
60
Right. That’s why the IPCC employs scientists to do its work on science, while Heartland and the GWPF employ PR-merchants and spends a sum-total of Zero$/year on any actual science research.
Ideology and lobbying. Precisely.
35
Jen, we realize you can’t help yourself and you have to follow the herd, the certificates, and your leaders. But we are very bored of you repeating the fallacy of argument from authority. If your leaders are so correct, it should be easy for you to use actual arguments with evidence instead of merely asserting that we ought be obedient like you. Seriously, the “obey” and be fashionable stuff just doesn’t work on us.
71
I’d rather be questioning genuine scientists than obeying (or even, taking mony from,)PR-merchants, which is the essential difference between us.
[Nobody asked me or paid me a cent to start the blog or write the Skeptics Handbook. The PDF’s available free. What essential difference do you mean. Do spell it out…? Jo PS: Overall this battle for good science has come at considerable expense. (But it is rewarding in other ways).]
[Ad Hominem seems to be your only argument. -Fly]
24
The go question them. instead of blindly following your puppet master.
20
Well, ask away JenJ. There are several genuine scientists that post regularly on this forum.
Just realise that you will only ever be in a position of asking, NOT telling.
And please realise that the only way you will actually LEARN anything is to take your fingers out of your ears and hands from over your eyes and make at least some effort to comprehend.
21
The IPCC does not do work on science. They even state so in their charter. They summarize OTHER scientific work.
Your ignorance would be surprising if you were sentient.
20
Jo-have you ever looked into what the Club of Budapest pushes? Less well known that the Club of Rome, all the talk in the Hope on Earth about adaptation and governance as supposedly required links perfectly to cultivating what BoP calls “holos consciousness.” http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/evolution-to-a-holos-consciousness-is-certainly-not-my-idea-of-education-reform-is-it-yours/
Believe it or not, this kind of consciousness with links to seeing the world as a system about to descend into catastrophic warming ties into what is globally called Quality Learning. While the focus is on IPCC in Japan, a more likely to be impactful international meeting is commencing in New Zealand. “Excellence, Equity and Inclusiveness: High Quality Teaching for All.” Education International and the UN’s Paris-based fellow leech the OECD are the sponsors.
New Zealand is where the actual means to gain behavior adaptation and acquiescence to new forms of governance will actually be taking place.
20
Sounds like heavy duty doublespeak and brainwashing to me…..
Anything the Left gets hold cannot be considered high quality – unless you include propganda dissemination and thuggery….
20
How can they get away with this fraud any longer? The RS and the NAS report clearly tells us there is nothing we can do about co2 emissions for thousands of years.
We could stop all human co2 emissions today and it wouldn’t change a thing.
These people seem to be trying to fulfill their own definition of madness.
That’s when you keep repeating and repeating an action for zero change. Just like belting ones head against a brick wall.
Trouble is this will cost us 10s of billions $ in OZ and countless trillions around the world for zero impact on climate or temp. Why are they trying to sell this con and fraud and why doesn’t the MSM tell the public the truth?
30
“nothing we can do about co2 emissions for thousands of years”
….but, weirdly, Germany has been able to reduce its emissions by 30%.
I wonder if Neville can explain the conitradiction between his assertion and fact?
15
–
JenJ:
“I wonder if Neville can explain the conitradiction(sic) between his assertion and fact?”
–
He’s referring to the ‘RS and the NAS’ report, JenJ.
–
Your question should read; ‘I wonder if the RS and the NAS can explain the conitradiction(sic) between their assertions and fact?’
40
You do not even lie convincingly.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/26/german-renewable-energy-emission-co2
http://www.dw.de/germany-says-eus-emissions-requirements-are-unreasonable/a-2266503-1
Really, your ignorance is mindboggling.
40
I’m sorry, Phil, that your research skills are letting you down again…
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/gert.gif
Germany has indeed reduced its CO2 emissions by 30%.
Surprised you weren’t aware of this….
[1. That graph has nothing to do with Germany. Why did you link to it? 2. Reduced by 30% over what period? 3. And how many degrees did Germany cool the world by? – Jo]
23
My research is fine. Your graph is a non sequitur.
Want to try again? I doubt you are capable. Apparently you have no clue what research is, or what the hell you are talking about. Which is typical for you.
Here’s a hint. Drawing pretty lines and then posting it on the web is NOT evidence. Nor is it research.
Burned you again.
10
But politically
die Fuhrerdas Chancellor, has decreed that the decrease will be 30%. So that is what the number will be, even if the word “percent” has to be redefined to mean one-tenth of its present value.20
26 March: Guardian: Damian Carrington: Climate change will make UK weather too wet and too dry, says Met Office
UK will see wetter, milder winters and hotter, drier summers due to global warming, scientists predict
“We have to continue to live with the cold events, but get used to the warm events,” said Professor Stephen Belcher, head of the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and who led the report. “The boundaries we have to adapt to are expanding.” …
Prof Jim Hall, at the University of Oxford and not involved in the Met Office report, backed its conclusions: “Some impacts of climate change are already materialising and they will impact via extremes.”…
Professor Nigel Arnell, at the University of Reading, said: “The IPCC report will be the most fundamental assessment of the global impacts of climate change ever assembled. It is likely to show that the scale of potential damage and disruption to human activity across the world is enormous. Perhaps the greater risk to Britain is the potential of disruption elsewhere in the world, with the resultant impact on the global economy and the potential for security and humanitarian crises. In a globalised world, there is no hiding place from climate change.”
Prof Andrew Challinor, at the University of Leeds and a lead author of the IPCC report, said crop yields in temperate regions were projected to fall by 5-10% in the 2030s and that falls of 25% will become more common after 2050.
Dr Sotiris Vardoulakis, at Public Health England, said more heat-related deaths would be expected and problems with allergens and with mental health issues related to extreme weather would increase…
FIRST COMMENT: barpropper: That’s all bases covered?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/25/climate-change-uk-weather-wet-dry-met-office
25 March: UK Telegraph Blog: Andrew Lilico: Climate change: the debate is about to change radically
(Andrew Lilico is an Economist with Europe Economics, and a member of the Shadow Monetary Policy Committee. He was formerly the Chief Economist of Policy Exchange.)
The latest report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is due out next week. If the leaked draft is reflected in the published report, it will constitute the formal moving on of the debate from the past, futile focus upon “mitigation” to a new debate about resilience and adaptation.
The new report will apparently tell us that the global GDP costs of an expected global average temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Celsius over the 21st century will be between 0.2 and 2 per cent. To place that in context, the well-known Stern Review of 2006 estimated the costs as 5-20 per cent of GDP. Stern estimates the costs of his recommended policies for mitigating climate change at 2 per cent of GDP – and his estimates are widely regarded as relatively optimistic (others estimate mitigation costs as high as 10 per cent of global GDP). Achieving material mitigation, at a cost of 2 per cent and more of global GDP, would require international co-ordination that we have known since the failure of the Copenhagen conference on climate change simply was not going to happen. Even if it did happen, and were conducted optimally, it would mitigate only a fraction of the total rise, and might create its own risks…
***The 2014 Budget recognised reality, with the Government now introducing special measures to keep energy prices low for energy intensive firms – abandoning what little pretence remained that it was attempting to prevent climate change by limiting energy use so as to limit CO2 emissions. The new IPCC report – though it remains as robust as ever in saying that there will be climate change and its effects will be material (points that relatively few mitigation policy sceptics deny) – has a marked change of focus from the 2007 report.
Whereas previously the IPCC emphasised the effects climate change could have if not prevented, now the focus has moved on to how to make economies and societies resilient and to adapt to warming now considered inevitable. Climate exceptionalism – the notion that climate change is a challenge of a different order from, say, recessions or social inclusion or female education or many other important global policy goals – is to be down played…
That doesn’t mean there might not be the odd mitigation-type policy, around the edges, that is cheap and feasible and worthwhile. But it does mean that the grandiloquent schemes for preventing climate change should go. Their day is done. Even the IPCC – albeit implicitly – sees that now.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/andrewlilico/100026933/climate-change-the-debate-is-about-to-change-radically/
00
26 March: Reuters: Alister Doyle: Extracting carbon from nature can aid climate but will be costly-UN
A little-known technology that may be able to take the equivalent of China’s greenhouse gas emissions out of the carbon cycle could be the radical policy shift needed to slow climate change this century, a draft U.N. report shows.
Using the technology, power plants would burn biomass – wood, wood pellets, or plant waste like from sugar cane – to generate electricity while the carbon dioxide in the biomass is extracted, piped away and buried deep underground.
Among techniques, a chemical process can strip carbon dioxide from the flue gases from combustion.
The process – called bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) – would make the power plants not only carbon-neutral but actively a part of extracting carbon dioxide from a natural cycle of plant growth and decay…
***It would be a big shift from efforts to fight global warming mainly by cutting emissions of greenhouse gases from mankind’s use of fossil fuels in factories, power plants and cars, but may be necessary given the failure so far to cut rising emissions…
BECCS, also known as bio-CCS, would cost from $60 to $250 a tonne of carbon dioxide eliminated, the IPCC says.
“BECCS faces large challenges in financing and currently no such plants have been built and tested at scale,” it says.
Archer Daniels Midland Co has a facility in Illinois, partly funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, to inject 333,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year into the ground from a plant producing ethanol from corn.
“Bio-CCS technology is becoming increasingly recognised as a credible option,” said Brad Page, head of the Australia-based Global CCS Institute, but added it was only a partial fix..
Apart from the high costs of BECCS, “the area you need is vast,” said Joris Koornneef, an expert at sustainable energy consultancy Ecofys in the Netherlands.
***He estimated that it would require 350 million hectares (864 million acres) – bigger than India – to be producing biomass for BECCS to make enough to suck 10 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air, which would risk taking land from food crops.
Erwin Jackson, deputy head of The Climate Institute, an independent research group in Australia, said governments and companies should do more to research BECCS technologies. “At the moment we’re ignoring them and that’s risky,” he said…
***The IPCC says it is at least 95 percent probable that climate change is mainly man-made, rather than caused by natural swings, but opinion polls show voters in many nations are unconvinced.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/26/climatechange-ccs-idUSL5N0MN30420140326
00
Another paper by lewandowsky comes under the spotlight:
“To put it bluntly, the paper strongly suggests that people who believe in global warming are more gullible and skeptics are very resistant to false suggestions.”
http://skience.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/lewandowsky/
00
for TonyfromOz:
26 March: NRDC Staff Blog: Dan Lashof: Coal Lobby Funded Study Shows Carbon Pollution Standards are Cost Effective
Try as they might, the coal lobby just can’t come up with any support for their claim that ending unlimited dumping of power plant carbon pollution into our atmosphere will spell the death of Western civilization and the end to freedom as we know it. In fact, their latest attempt proves the opposite: Even using biased assumptions to inflate costs, the study they commissioned shows that the carbon pollution standards NRDC has proposed can be met with minimal economic impacts and costs that are far outweighed by the benefits…
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlashof/coal_lobby_funded_study_shows.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+switchboard_all+(Switchboard%3A+Blogs+from+NRDC's+Environmental+Experts)
00
re the Exxon/Arjuna/AsYouSow PR:
25 March: Oilprice: Rory Johnston: The Emerging Investor Language of “Carbon Asset Risk”
Carbon Asset Risk proposals are an interesting strategy, and getting America’s largest oil and gas company to move on the issue is impressive, but two things need to be remembered. First, they will only work for publically traded companies, which only hold a fraction of the world’s hydrocarbon reserves (the vast majority are held by various state-owned enterprises). Second, the countries that are most likely to adopt carbon-constraining policies are not the countries where demand growth is expected.
It is questionable whether these Carbon Asset Risk plans will say much of anything, let alone enunciate the sustainable strategy that environmental groups are hoping for. More likely, these plans will articulate how firms intend to navigate future regulatory realities and still turn a profit. Good news for the shareholders, but unlikely to please the environmental crowd.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Emerging-Investor-Language-of-Carbon-Asset-Risk.html
00
Arthur Petersen nails it. IPCC WG2 has been charged with identifying the risks of climate change. And that is what it does.
I have argued long and hard that proper policy advice entails that you sometimes tell the client what they do not want to hear, that climate change brings both risks and opportunities. I lost that debate, and the result was a Summary that I am so uncomfortable with that I withdrew my name.
I am still an author of Chapter 10, a fine chapter. My name will be in IPCC WG2 AR5, unless they kill the chapter over the next few days.
190
I take it that you are not agreeing that there should be bias when you write “Arthur Petersen nails it”. Lack of bias doesn’t mean that extreme views are ignored. Its means that opposing arguments are fairly represented.
33
Vic: I think we should all try our utmost to avoid bias.
60
Just clearing up the ambiguity.
20
Thanks Richard, I really appreciate your efforts.
10
I agree with you on the opportunities point completely, Richard.
Climate Change gives us a reason to do things differrntly and in a better way. Far from being an economic risk it should be and will be a standard of living increase at all levels. Starting with base energy production and working outwards. Ireland does not have anything like the same solar options that Australia has, but there are many technologies, and they are not all “high tech”.
For instance, I have been doing some research into absorptive chillers. It is very hard to get quantitative information on these but I finally got a lead that says that the drive energy is 1.7 times the delivered energy. The drive energy can be as low as 95deg C. There are a huge number of waste energy souces at this level available to tapped to provide air conditioning at zero grid energy consumption. This is a completely undeveloped field that is slowly being brought back to life from obscurity.
The now arriving new generation of small hybride are going to have a massive impact on petrol and diesel consumption. More expensive at the outset but I expect these to become just a little more expensive than the standard ICE’d vehicle ten years from now.
Solar technologies are still only at the threshhold of their potential for distributed energy generation with a 3 fold efficiency gain still available.
Internet functionality has already had a massive impact on the need to physically around and as band width universally improves a significant percentage of commuting will become unnecessary.
Smart phones have had a huge impact on how people spend their time. Physical face to face time has reduced along with the travelling that goes with that. The power of these devices (and tablets) has also reduced the need for large bulky material intensive desktop computers.
There are very significant economic opportunities available to those countries who embrace the challenge, and in the process CO2 emissions will be reduced, resources life will be extended and standards of living will be increased.
And the climate will do what ever the prevailing energies and forces cause it to do.
From what I read your IPCC objection was to do with the scope of the report, not the intention of it. Is that correct or not?
Hat tip on doing things differently: see Barefoot College
015
Still believe in Fairies at the bottom of the garden I see BilB.
How are you getting on answering “The Questions”, I’m still hearing crickets (Chirp… Chirp)
Anyway to the tripe you just Posted
I finally got a lead that says that the drive energy is 1.7 times the delivered energy
Well, it’d have to be a bloody good one common absorption chiller efficiency is below 1.2. Contrast that against rankine cycle cooling at up to COP of 4 — Seems to me that all that toxic ammonia just isn’t worth the effort.
And I had such a chortle at this one
Solar technologies are still only at the threshold of their potential for distributed energy generation with a 3 fold efficiency gain still available.
Will Steffan , warmist hero extraordinaire, said that enough sunlight falls on Victoria to power it twice over. Meaning that to power Victoria given the inefficiencies of Solar we’d need an area at least 15 times the area of Victoria tiled with Solar Panels, with your brilliant 3 fold increase in quantum efficiency (highly unlikely given the spectral sensitivity of semiconductor junctions) we’d only need an area 5 times the area of Victoria to power Victoria… Brilliant news there BilB… Absolutely stunning.
Why don’t we just turn them off, you know, those polluting power stations billowing all that water into the atmosphere. We’ll start with the circuit that feeds your place, and oh, no sneaky Petrol/Diesel generators allowed.
And how about those questions, let’s take them one by one shall we
Did you know for example that the next best fuel after coal is FLOUR similar calorific value, and burns real well in adapted pulverized coal furnaces – taken from some third world persons dinner plate of course….
71
If you are going to lampoon people, bobl, at least protect youself from looking stupid by doing even some research.
On the solar capacity of Victoria. If you cover Victoria with 20% efficient panels then by basic calculation from the 228 billion square metres of panels you would yield around 94 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity. This would be 2000 times Victoria’s total annual electricity consumption. I suspect that you totally missunderstood what Will Steffan said. I can guess that he was talking about roof top area.
Absorptive chillers are not gaged on efficiency, they are gaged on their thermal effectiveness. Of coarse the Rankine cycle chiller is more effective. That is why it took over from kerosene fridges. That system though requires power level energy to drive it.
Absorptive chillers can run of low grade waste heat and be very effective in the process. Most of the chillers being made at present use Lithium Bromide as the operating mediun, not Ammonia.
And on solar system efficiency a 3 fold efficiency is available just on the pve content alone. The standard Australian rooftop system being installed is 15% efficient. The next level up is 20% efficient. The Semprius devices boast a peak efficiency of 45%. Or (you might need a 5th grader to help you with this one) 45 divided by 15 which equals 3. A three fold efficiency improvement. But there is another 15 to 20 percent on top of that again available from the thermal throughput. So that makes a 4 fold improvement available. I was being conservative.
Flour??? America would be doing itself a great service to burn half the flour consumed by their people. There would be an immediate drop in the degree of obesity.
15
94 trillion kwhrs, by the way is about 70% of 2008 global electricity consumption, if I haven’t got lost in all of those zeros that is.
25
the next best fuel after coal is FLOUR
bobl,you wont have to worry about taking flour off a third world dinner plate,if they have flour power electricity generators and mill the grain as they need it,wont be long before the whole lot goes boom.
30
Richard,
We would disagree on climate change but your honesty is much appreciated. As I said above, “Good for Richard Tol.”
I can’t put words in anyone else’s mouth but I can speak for myself. It takes courage to stand up and object and for that you have earned my respect.
30
Apparently, it turns out that modelling is good if it says something that matches some people’s political ideology.
[Apparently? So you are not sure? Why not correct that with some facts and evidence. Scientific facts, based on sound observation, will always trump a political ideology. -Fly]
23
JenJ;
“Apparently, it turns out that modelling is good if it says something that matches some people’s political ideology.”
–
No doubt Jen, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy would agree wholeheartedly!
–
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/sarkozy-and-model-girlfriend/
–
http://www.dw.de/sarkozy-calls-for-a-global-organization-on-the-environment/a-4497646-1
00
Good-on-ya Richard Tol.
Like a pillar of lard in the midday sun the UN-IPCC authority to governments is melting. It now looks more irresponsible, and irrelevant than ever. Its time to take the fat, and excess money out of the UN and its oleaginous IPCC, remove the greedy greasy basterds.
UN-IPCC is not about science, truth, or logic, it has been and still is about political power and money.
60
family squabble:
26 March: JapanFocus: John Mathews and Hao Tan: Jousting with James Hansen: China building a renewables powerhouse
We have the dubious distinction of being misrepresented by Dr James Hansen, surely the most famous climate scientist in the world. It’s not often that two social scientists find themselves dealt with in this way by such a deservedly respected public figure. Not to respond would be to declare defeat or even to agree with Dr Hansen’s assertions, and we are inclined to do neither.
In this article, we begin our rebuttal by affirming our unbounded admiration for Dr Hansen. He is not only the world’s top climate scientist but also a fearless, and deliberately activist, exponent of the view that the age of fossil fuels is – and must be – drawing to an end. Dr Hansen’s research and activism are a major reason we are having this debate about climate and energy…
Where we part company, however, is on the policy implications. We have been caught in Dr Hansen’s wider trawl for what he calls “Renewables can do all” greenies, or what might better be called “Nothing but renewables” greenies (NBRGs). He accuses NBRGs of mistakenly promoting renewables at the expense of nuclear power and thereby opening the way towards the rise and conquest of the gas industry…
In this regard, Dr Hansen discusses our findings on China and its rapid build-up of an energy system based largely on coal, and where there are also substantial investments being made in both nuclear and renewables, particularly hydro, wind and solar. In Dr Hansen’s posting “Renewable energy, nuclear power and Galileo: Do scientists have a duty to expose popular misconceptions?” (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140221_DraftOpinion.pdf) we read the quite correct assertion that “China is now leading the world in installation of new hydropower, wind, solar and nuclear electricity generation.”
We certainly concur with Dr Hansen about that. But he didn’t leave it there. He went on to insist that “the energy development situation in China is often reported, in the West, in very misleading ways. For example, a 2014 article ‘China roars ahead with renewables’ in Ecologist magazine reprinted from The Conversation [that is, our own article, unattributed], stated ‘Reports of China opening a huge new coal-fired power station every week belie the reality – China is the new global powerhouse for renewable modernization and industrialization of the country – is now [sic] being powered more by renewables than by fossil fuels.’”
Whether deliberate or not, this extract (which does not use our own words but is compiled from the editors’ introduction in The Ecologist) obscures a pertinent fact: we were making a very clear distinction (and continue to make the distinction) between China’s total electric power system, which is still largely coal-driven, and the leading edge of change, where new capacity additions are being installed and where renewables are coming to occupy an ever greater part of China’s expansive energy profile…
We could not have been clearer, when we stated that “the growth of its [China’s] electric power system – that underpins the entire modernisation and industrialisation of the country – is now being powered more by renewables than by fossil fuels.”…
http://japanfocus.org/events/view/214
00
27 March: ABC AM: Direct Action report a whitewash, says minister
(STRAIGHT TO) CHRISTINE MILNE: Direct action is not supported by economists, can’t be scaled up. In fact, it’s an embarrassing joke…
SIMON LAUDER: And on Labor Party policy for an emissions reduction target, when will you make a decision?
(FINAL WORD TO) MARK BUTLER: Well, we’ll make it in due course. We’re the Opposition. It’s the Government’s responsibility.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2014/s3972412.htm
26 March: Bloomberg: Rudy Ruitenberg: Raise a Glass of Scottish Wine to Global Climate Changes
In Europe, warmer seasons are chasing Italian and Spanish vintners up hillsides, making a winner of Germany, encouraging growers in Poland and spreading the cultivation of wine grapes to latitudes friendlier to belly-warming whiskies and ales. And it’s raising the alcohol content, and altering the flavors, of famous wines in France…
As efforts to mitigate climate change have fallen short of goals, development groups such as Oxfam have urged farmers to adapt. The world is “woefully unprepared” for the threat to food security from drought and flooding brought on by a warming climate, the Oxford, England-based Oxfam said yesterday…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-26/raise-a-glass-of-scottish-wine-to-global-climate-changes.html
00
27 March: Age: Peter Hannam: IPCC dispute simmers over economic costs of climate change
Richard Tol, a lead convening author of the chapter 10 in the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report due for release at the end of March, said he disagreed with the general findings that global warming will bring major disruptions to nations and nature.
“I think the [Summary for Policymakers] drifted too far to the alarmist side,” Professor Tol told Fairfax Media in an email…
Bob Ward, an expert reviewer of the chapter, complained to the IPCC that the additions, including clause 10.9.2., downplayed the economic costs of climate change and also contained errors. He also rejected comments by Professor Tol and co-chair of the entire Working Group II report Chris Field, that his complaints had been accepted outside the normal review process.
“There was no way within the IPCC’s official review processes for me or any other expert reviewer to see the final draft which was distributed to governments,” Mr Ward told Fairfax. “It is only because I bothered to download from a blog a leaked copy of the final draft of chapter 10 that I was able to see the changes and spot the errors.”
The spat sheds light on the relative paucity of economic research on climate change and also the difficultly of capturing the costs of extreme weather events or calamities such as conflict over food or water…
Andy Pittman, director of the University of NSW’s Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, said that while climate science “is scaffolded on phenomenally sound foundations”, economists dealt with competing assumptions of human behaviour .
Economics “does not have the luxury of those projections being anchored in something that is immutable like the laws of physics”, Professor Pittman said…
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/ipcc-dispute-simmers-over-economic-costs-of-climate-change-20140327-35jho.html
20
Pat #26
Re: “Andy Pittman, director of the University of NSW’s Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, said that…..”
Go here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/prof-richard-tol-wants-his-name-removed-from-exaggerated-ipcc-report/#comment-1413245
00
btw i can find nothing on ABC about the Richard Tol story.
also, no MSM apart from Daily Mail, BBC & Fairfax, as of posting this comment.
30
The sad thing is, that the politics of the Government Taxpayer Funded Big Lie, is effective among the young.
11
Professor Tol is an economist. How does that make him a climate scientist?
13
Your missing the point.
His role in the IPCC process was to provide advice as an economist on the economic factors associated with AGW. His assertion is that the level of alarmism is not an accurate reflection of the economic challenges facing nations or the globe.
As he accurately and sensibly states “Professor Tol told the BBC: ‘You have a very silly statement in the draft summary that says that people who live in war-torn countries are more vulnerable to climate change, which is undoubtedly true. But if you ask people in Syria whether they are more concerned with chemical weapons or climate change, I think they would pick chemical weapons – that is just silliness.”
When Kevin Rudd declared https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqZvpRjGtGM
He wasn’t a climate scientist either, but unlike Professor Toll, he had no idea what he was talking about and a motivation to gain votes from people who think politicians can change the weather.
See the difference?
50
Safetyguy66: thanks for your comments. I’ve had a look at the link to Kevin Rudd, and hearing all this comes (sadly) as no surprise.
The whole bandwagon of those who believe that humans are changing the planet’s climate rolls on however, and in that respect as I see it Professor Tol and Kevin Rudd have that at least in common!
00
Exaggeration?
Try the Angry Summer!
The Climate Council’s latest Angry Summer report analyses climate data from across the country for the 2013-2014 summer.
The report says Adelaide experienced 13 days above 40 degrees Celsius, including five days in a row above 42C.
~ ~ ~ ~
Carbon(sic) levels are at a dangerous and catastrophic 400ppm.
~ ~ ~ ~
Meanwhile, Gaia laughs at the climate fools:
Bumper Brolgas at Bool!
“The increase in young birds suggests that breeding success has improved in years of good winter-spring rainfall and highlights the importance of the small seasonal wetlands.”
The Little Bool Lagoon is just ‘down the road’ from Adelaide.
Quote Ms Lesley Hughes, a Macquarie University professor & co Angry Summer author: “It’s consistent with the predictions of what happens as the globe warms up.”
. . .
No, no it’s not.
20
The Little Bool Lagoon is just ‘down the road’ from Adelaide.
Handjive,I like the ‘just down the road’bit.If any local Adelaide gangreen nature buffs,with an electric car,want to see the results of brolga humpin it would take 4 recharges down and four recharges to get back home.Our Aussie ‘just down the road’ or ‘just round the corner’ is always good for a giggle.
10
The history of the world is one of adapting to endless climate change. Study Egypt. Current thinking is that it was suddenly not hot enough, that the monsoons stopped and everyone was forced into the Nile valley. Extreme heat produced onshore winds and rain, monsoons but the rain stopped. However the modern view is that the sea level is fine, Ireland is fine, England is fine and we would all like climates to stop changing. Personally I would like it a few degrees hotter on average.
What an amazing situation, that humans are now so convinced of their own supreme ownership of the planet that we can dictate the weather and the movement of the tectonic plates and the position of the solar system in the galaxy, even the nutation of the planet and the intensity of the sun. From ignorance to omnipotence since 1901. Amazing. All down to CO2. Now like ants controlling the golf course, we worship science and its high priests, Tim Flannery, Al Gore, L Ron Hubbard and the IPCC. I must put on my academic gown and parade up and down the street while people throw flowers before my feet. Or am I delusional, like everyone else?
50
Hello!?? Hello!????
Any sceptics here?
What was Tol’s relationship with the working group over the last 12 months?
Did Tol’s “resignation” precede, or succeed, his removal from the list of authors?
Anybody asked themselves these questions and done some research? Or are we just lapping-up some PR emitted by an interested party?
Over to you, “sceptics”…
25
Ask him yourself, he contributes to this site.
00
Read post #22, bozette !!
01
or should that be “bozelle” ?
01
Apparently, abuse is tolerated here…while most of my entirely non-abusive posts are censored by the intellectually insecure “Fly”…
23
–
“…. intellectually insecure “Fly””.
–
Cut the ad hom, please JenJ!
11
Yes, you are tolerated.
10
‘IPCC dispute simmers over economic costs of climate change’
Peter Hannam, SMH, March 27, 2014
[…]
Andy Pittman, director of the University of NSW’s Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, said that while climate science “is scaffolded on phenomenally sound foundations”, economists dealt with competing assumptions of human behaviour .
Economics “does not have the luxury of those projections being anchored in something that is immutable like the laws of physics”, Professor Pittman said.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/ipcc-dispute-simmers-over-economic-costs-of-climate-change-20140327-35jho.html
“scaffolded on phenomenally sound foundations” ???
scaf·fold (skăf′əld, -ōld′)
n.
1. A temporary platform, either supported from below or suspended from above, on which workers sit or stand when performing tasks at heights above the ground.
2. A raised wooden framework or platform.
3. A platform used in the execution of condemned prisoners, as by hanging or beheading.
tr.v. scaf·fold·ed, scaf·fold·ing, scaf·folds
1. To provide or support with a raised framework or platform.
2. To place on a raised framework or platform.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scaffold
Climate science: sound foundation – structure’s a “scaffold”.
10
Afterthought:
Climate science: sound foundation – structure’s a “scaffold”.
For beheading.
According to NSW’ Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.
00
>”I don’t think the IPCC’s forcing expression, dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co), has quite reached immutable law status just yet Andy.”
From The Hockey Schtick:
‘Dana’s unremarkable global warming predictions debunked’
Paid CAGW propagandist Dana Nuccitelli has an article today in the Guardian and at the SS site gushing about a paper published in 1972 he claims made “a remarkably accurate global warming prediction” “of the next 30 years.” However, examination of the paper reveals complete ignorance of the logarithmically declining “radiative forcing” of CO2, and in fact demonstrates that “radiative forcing” from CO2 is less than half that currently claimed by the IPCC.
[…]
3. The paper should have used a logarithmic equation, such as the IPCC/Myhre equation for CO2 forcing with alleged water vapor amplification:
5.35*ln[CO2ending/CO2starting]
which has a huge erroneous fudge factor of 5.35 that assumes increased water vapor will cause a positive feedback and increase total radiative forcing from CO2 & water vapor by a factor of 3.8 times. In reality, increased water vapor has a negative feedback cooling effect that more than exceeds any warming effect of CO2. The wet adiabatic lapse rate is only one-half of the dry rate, proving that water vapor has a net cooling effect. Satellite observations also prove the net climate feedbacks are negative, not positive as this paper and the IPCC assumes.
4. Even if one falsely assumes 100% of the global warming from 1850-2000 was due to increased CO2, the fudge factor in the IPCC/Myhre formula should be
x = 0.6/[ln(370/292)*.75] = 3.38
[Assumptions: 0.6C warming, starting CO2 292 ppm, ending CO2 370 ppm, IPCC (false) assumption that 1W/m2 radiative forcing causes 0.75C surface warming]
based on observations 1850-2000, instead of 5.35, an exaggeration of 1.58 times.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/danas-unremarkable-global-warming.html
# # #
>”Assumptions: 0.6C warming”
But if there’s some cooling in the future i.e. 0.6C warming assumption is premature – what then for the “immutable law”?
00
Dang! Replied to the wrong comment.
#33.1.1 above should have been below #33.2 here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/prof-richard-tol-wants-his-name-removed-from-exaggerated-ipcc-report/#comment-1413279
[I’ll blame night shifts]
00
[Andy Pittman] >”those projections being anchored in something that is immutable like the laws of physics”
I don’t think the IPCC’s forcing expression, dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co), has quite reached immutable law status just yet Andy.
00
>”I don’t think the IPCC’s forcing expression, dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co), has quite reached immutable law status just yet Andy.”
See The Hockey Schtick article up-thread a bit here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/prof-richard-tol-wants-his-name-removed-from-exaggerated-ipcc-report/#comment-1413346
00
How about having to deal with the heat dithering as to when and where it hides?
10
The Guardian has just published one of the most uncritical pieces about the IPCC ever:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/climate-change-threat-food-security-humankind#show-all
00
The climate change agenda definitely IS a thread to food security.
a) Biofuels eating up a whole heap of food crops.
b) Climate fools wanting to reduce the mount of CO2 in the atmosphere rather than trying to keep it climbing
c) Climate fools wanting it to get cooler, so crops don’t grow as well as they could
d) Climate fools stopping the implementation of more secure power supplies in developing countries.. hindering food storage, processing etc
e) green agenda stopping the building of more freshwater storage dams.
etc
etc
Yes.. the climate change agenda is DEFINITELY a threat to world food security. !!
01
[…] […]
00
[…] lead author and Professor of Economics Richard Tol, who wanted his name removed after political interference with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), said this […]
00